Expansion in View of Southern Politicians

¶ … tagged along with the burning issue of slavery in those years preceding the American Civil War, expanding American territory would redound to the best advantage of its people and further enhance its economic and political objectives and gains.

The principle of manifest destiny could be invoked, whereby the people of those days had the power and duty "to overspread and to possess the whole of (the Northern American) continent, which Providence has given (them) for the development of the great experiment of liberty." This tenet, introduced and made popular by journalist John L. Sullivan in 1845, which maintained that it was the American nation's destiny as well as duty to conquer the West and to expand its limits "in the name of God, nature, civilization and progress." Reminding both Northerners and Southerners, whether pro-or anti-slavery, about this divine right and supreme responsibility could incline their minds to the necessity of expanding American territory in those days. Both factions must be helped into viewing this destiny as benevolent and dignifying as well as magnanimous to these territories to be won.

In the process of expanding territorial jurisdiction, new acquisitions should be strictly categorized and examined, whether as a free state or a slave state, as in the case of Texas. There should be a new set of rules to govern territories considered slave states, while free states should be immediately incorporated into the Union with full rights, responsibilities and privileges.

Maintain the "common-property doctrine" whereby these newly acquired free state-territories, won by wars or by any other means, should become the common property of all states, and not the property of the federal government. This would mean that the federal government would not interfere with the right of private citizens of any such free states from emigrating with their 'slaves" or property.

Revitalize the policy of popular sovereignty associated with then Northern Democrats headed by then Senator Stephen Douglas in pushing for the passage of the Nebraska Act of 1854 which, in turn, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Move that the people of a territory or state should have the autonomy to tackle the slavery issue for itself without interference from the government. Whatever the differences and gaps between the Northerners' and Southerners' concepts of popular sovereignty should be bridged, not by compromise, but a majority vote.

If this argument were raised before the 19th century, the 1789 Constitution should be invoked, particularly Sections 9 to 10 of Article 1, which prohibited Congress from interfering with the slave trade prior to 1808 and which taxed each slave at a maximum of $10 each. Expansion at that time was greatly encouraged and the slave trade was controlled only by taxes.

There would be no compromises, as compromises had proved to breed greater strain and more conflicts.

If this argument were presented after 1808, an amendment to this section of the Constitution could be sought to encourage expansion, but move for the importation and emigration of slaves for a limited period, states or territories, volume and at a higher tax. There would be an entirely different set of laws for Black states and territories which would encumber so as to restrain them from rebellion and other acts inimical to the Union.

Pursuant to popular sovereignty, the doctrine of states' rights should be stressed, whereby those states, which desired to welcome expansion and slavery and the federal government should acknowledge their inherent rights to do so without interference. It could furthermore be argued that expansion would be healthy to the Union, whether in the North or South. Increased boundaries in the South would mean a stronger agricultural economy, as 66% of the union's income came from the South.

Take the Compromise of 1850 by Henry Clay as a rallying point. This nullified the Missouri

Compromise and moved actions and decisions on slavery to each state. Remind the audience of the violence that broke out as a consequence of the failed Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

Or use the Dred Scott Court decision, which affirmed the rights of white owners of slaves to move their slaves into a free territory, acquired through expansion. This was a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 1857 whereby a Virginia slave sought freedom when he was taken by hs owner to a territory categorized as free under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Convince opposing Northern politicians that the ceding of more territories would increase the Union's overall political and economic strength.

To pacify abolitionists in particular, suggest that concrete restraints on new slave states be strictly imposed. But to prevent slave rebellions, watch that such restrains do not hurt the slaves' fundamental human rights. The imposition of the Fugitive Slave Act should be imposed only on willing states and territories.

On the whole, implore the soundness of popular sovereignty whereby each acquired state or territory could deal with the problem of slavery on its own. There are federal and state laws that could cover newly secured or admitted territories as far as in the Pacific regions where these laws could be enforced. Even assuming that there are slaves in these new territories or states, they would some day need to write their individual constitutions which in turn would be reviewed by Congress. Congress could then have firm control of such territories or states. Whatever state problems they might have in the future, these would eventually and actually become national matters of control, not those states' any longer.

Popular sovereignty would also be readily accepted by newly acquired territories, which have a democratic base. The people of such a territory could be asked if they want to keep slaves. The slaves themselves would not be asked for their opinion, of course. There are hardly any slaves in democracies.

This move would also be acceptable to those who stood behind states' rights as a condition to tolerating federal control of local matters. It would solve the major concern that both slave and free Blacks were excluded from the privilege of making decisions for the nation.

But realizing that extending the Union's overall territory would also extend slavery, there should be clearer, stricter laws that would control it. The conditions each territory to be acquired should be reviewed if any condition would constitute a violation, jeopardize or limit the intent or interest of the Union. Much review should be undertaken before acquiring a new territory or state, better yet, a body should be constituted to periodically review the conditions and guidelines for accepting or incorporating new states or territories. But by all means, there should be more acquisitions for the sake of economic and political might into both near and distant regions of the world.